PLAYER57832 wrote:AND... its all pretty besides the point, anyway. Claiming that Margaret Sanger's thinking contis the "end all" of thinking TODAY on birth control and its use makes as much sense as claiming that because Darwin got some facts wrong, the whole idea of evolution is wrong.

She founded the organization known as Planned Parenthood. Saying that her ideas are not a part of its foundation is a lot like saying that the United States, at the time of the civil war was no longer influenced in any matter by George Washington. (It, in fact, took the Progressive Dictator for Life FDR to break the "tradition" of the two term president, so strongly was the model that "the General" set for the office and the government.)

Holding your hands over your ears in an attempt to pretend history doesn't exist is stupid.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND... its all pretty besides the point, anyway. Claiming that Margaret Sanger's thinking contis the "end all" of thinking TODAY on birth control and its use makes as much sense as claiming that because Darwin got some facts wrong, the whole idea of evolution is wrong.

She founded the organization known as Planned Parenthood. Saying that her ideas are not a part of its foundation is a lot like saying that the United States, at the time of the civil war was no longer influenced in any matter by George Washington. (It, in fact, took the Progressive Dictator for Life FDR to break the "tradition" of the two term president, so strongly was the model that "the General" set for the office and the government.)

Holding your hands over your ears in an attempt to pretend history doesn't exist is stupid.

Its really more like saying that blacks should not be able to vote today because they could not in Washington's time.

Sangers BASIC idea is still there.. that women should be able to control their own bodies and reproduction. The rest is stuff brought out by the right, not accurate as you reported (but since we have refuted it before and you ignored it then, not wasting time today on that). AND even if it were true, is irrelevant to today's debate.

I think it may be relevant to point out that it is in basically all intelligent animals' instinctual nature to protect their young, unborn or not. I happen to know a few people, all from different backgrounds, who have had abortions and all of them ultimately regret it. Without social pressures how prevalent would abortions actually be? If one could deduce that they would be much less prevalent, it makes one wonder if the real issue isn't being skirted just a little?As far the stance that abortion is just a woman's right to "control their own bodies", well I think this isn't even worthy of being called oversimplification, its plain ignorant of the fact that there is much more involved. Implying that a Pro-Lifer's objective is to take away a woman's control of her body is not only sexist, its offensive.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Its really more like saying that blacks should not be able to vote today because they could not in Washington's time.

Apart from the ability of slaves to vote, FREE blacks could vote in some states of the United States at the time of the General SOURCE

State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, "a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.") [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. [11] In fact, nearly a century later in 1874, US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (a black Republican from SC) queried: "When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it." [12]

[5] The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), p. 92, 1776 Delaware Constitution, "Declaration of Rights," #6.

Now, aside from your Bidenesque understanding of history, what was the point you were trying to make Player? I'm not sure how this related to abortion. Or was this Progressive Tactic #1; aka the Bevis and Butthead attack on the "past" to show why "progress" is good.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sangers BASIC idea is still there.. that women should be able to control their own bodies and reproduction.

That's not her idea whatsoever! It's the exact opposite, she didn't want to give women who could potentially bring inferior children to the world to have any choice in the matter whatsoever. This is why the 19th century feminists including Susan B. Anthony was totally against abortion because she felt that women would be forced by men to undergo a potentially life threatening procedure (which was true at the time). A significant number of women who have abortions are pressured to do so by partners, family or economic pressures.

A significant number of people in this thread don't know what abortion is (all of them). A significant number (just the OP) appeal to George Washington when discussing abortion for some reason as well.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sangers BASIC idea is still there.. that women should be able to control their own bodies and reproduction.

That's not her idea whatsoever! It's the exact opposite, she didn't want to give women who could potentially bring inferior children to the world to have any choice in the matter whatsoever. This is why the 19th century feminists including Susan B. Anthony was totally against abortion because she felt that women would be forced by men to undergo a potentially life threatening procedure (which was true at the time). A significant number of women who have abortions are pressured to do so by partners, family or economic pressures.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sangers BASIC idea is still there.. that women should be able to control their own bodies and reproduction.

That's not her idea whatsoever! It's the exact opposite, she didn't want to give women who could potentially bring inferior children to the world to have any choice in the matter whatsoever. This is why the 19th century feminists including Susan B. Anthony was totally against abortion because she felt that women would be forced by men to undergo a potentially life threatening procedure (which was true at the time). A significant number of women who have abortions are pressured to do so by partners, family or economic pressures.

Therefore,

So maybe a woman on here can explain why a woman would want an abortion? I know why a lot of men want a woman carrying their to get one but is this the same reason that women want to get them? If the reason is due to pressures then aren't the women maybe doing the opposite of what they want to do? If this is indeed the reason then the woman isn't controlling her body, social pressures (aka others) are.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sangers BASIC idea is still there.. that women should be able to control their own bodies and reproduction.

That's not her idea whatsoever! It's the exact opposite, she didn't want to give women who could potentially bring inferior children to the world to have any choice in the matter whatsoever. This is why the 19th century feminists including Susan B. Anthony was totally against abortion because she felt that women would be forced by men to undergo a potentially life threatening procedure (which was true at the time). A significant number of women who have abortions are pressured to do so by partners, family or economic pressures.

Therefore,

So maybe a woman on here can explain why a woman would want an abortion? I know why a lot of men want a woman carrying their to get one but is this the same reason that women want to get them? If the reason is due to pressures then aren't the women maybe doing the opposite of what they want to do? If this is indeed the reason then the woman isn't controlling her body, social pressures (aka others) are.

First of all, a LOT of what are statistically classed as "abortions" are actually miscarriage. This is partially becuase the medical term for any pregnancy loss, for any reason is "abortion" and partially because statistics tend to track procedure, not the cause. A woman who has a D&C post miscarriage is classed as having a surgical abortion. There are almost always no statistics kept on why the woman had the abortion, no category for "the child was dead already". Statistics that attempt to do that are almost always based on interviews and other not quite objective information. The rate of miscarriages is conservatively given at aroung 30%, but many assert that the more realistic figure is around 50%. Note, that includes fully "natural" miscarriages and the higher figures often include miscarriages that happen essentially before a woman really knows she was pregnant (many times, the first indication that you were pregnant is a miscarriage)

Second, (and note, not debating this, just explaining what some people think) there is the whole "what makes human life".. I don't mean just the "when does life begin" question, but would you consider it just to bring a child into the world that would endure constant pain?.. that would not have any kind of abilities to support him/herself or the ability to interact wel with others. Some people take what I consider an extremely distasteful (to put it mildly) tact that any child "not perfect" should not be born. (no, that was not Sanger's position, Tzor.. but anyway). This is why some women do abort babies with Downs, etc. HOWEVER, there is a point at which all but the most ardent has at least pause. Just because we have the technology to keep a person alive doesn't mean it is truly "just" or "reasonable" to do so. For me, the issue would be pain/extreme discomfort. Even setting aside what I personally consider repugnant choices (like aborting a Downs child, gender selection, etc), the plain fact is that we are a nation of many values. One of our highest is that parents get to decide for their children. To deny parents the right to say "no, I don't feel giving this child life is the right and moral thing to do" means you consider your morals somehow "higher" than others. And, note.. we are not talking ignorant, uncaring, unthinking or even people without faith/general morals. I am talking about people who sit down with their doctors, their clergy if applicable, and think about what is truly best for them and their child. To claim that people who don't know anything about their situation can make a "better" decision is just counter to all this country stands for, it is the most supreme invasion of privacy and freedom of religion.

Thirdly, there are a significant portion of pregnancies that are actually life-threatening. Ectopic births are a well known situation, but there are many, many other situations. Granted, the number of these abortions is not a huge percentage, but it is a critical percentage because without doctors willing to do the procedures and trained in the procedures, many more women would die. Be careful with those statistics, though. To many people, for example, the idea of aborting an ectopic pregnancy before it actually becomes life-threatening is a "choice", made for reasons other than threat to life. To them, only immediate and definite threat to life are allowable reasons for an abortion. I have to say they lack completely medical understanding or the speed and seriousness of many of these situations. Namely, waiting until the woman's life is absolutely at risk means there is a good chance the woman won't survive. Even if she does, the cost associated with blood transfusions and other necessary emergency care are quite high, plus there is a far, far greater risk of damaging her ability to have future children in the rush of an extreme emergency surgery than if the procedure is done earlier, when the situation is identified, but before a rupture actually happens.

Then you get into a broad range of "social" issues. Contrary to stereotypes, many women who have abortions plan to have children later. Children born into poverty, to single mothers do better today than they did in 1950, but they still are at risk for far, far more problems than children in stable homes. If they have a child early, then that future life is often denied.. or at least that is the fear. And, if you look at the statistics and realities, then its not exactly an esoteric and remote fear.

Next, well, yes, you do have women I would personally consider insane or just plain incredibly immoral /stupid. But, ask yourself.. do you really want a child foisted onto them? There are MANY things far worse for a child than a quick death.

Finally, there IS the ultimate question of when life truly begins. Scientific evidence demonstrates that there just is not much "there" at 3 months. There is a heart beat, a semblence of a human-like form, but not real brain activity, etc. "Right to Lifers" often dispute this, but that mostly gets into a moral argument. Pictures claiming to show fetus avoiding scalpels, etc have been shown to be falsely represented. In fact, that is probably the biggest and most powerful argument of Right to lifers.. so many people just don't want to deal with this, that they find it far easier to say "just stop it all!!!".

The tragedy is that most people taking that stance really do NOT get what the full ramifications are of the decision.

First, as I noted, many "abortions" are actually miscarriages. I don't make that claim lightly. I gave a lengthy and detailed account of my experience earlier in other threads. I don't care to repeat it, but please don't try to claim I am lying or don't know of what I speak. In the US, we have reached the point when birth/pregnancy are no longer the life-threatening situations that they genuinely were in years past, that they still can be in other countries. However, part of the reason is the ability to have an abortion before situations get to truly and immediately life-threatening.

Finally, I harken back to the arguments when Roe V. Wade was new. I have spoken with many older nurses, most particularly my Grandmother. Their view? No one LIKES abortion, but the fact was that women were having them.. and dying because the procedures were not safe in illegal environments. Legal abortion would at least save one of the two lives. AND.. if you consider that many women would then go on to have other children, then more than one life was saved.

NO ONE sane "likes" abortion. Right to lifers try to make that claim, but really show how little understanding they have. Unfortunately, sense is not something common any more in today's political rhetoric, particularly from the right (the truly idiot left is largely mute.. not even heard in liberal circles much any longer).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Its really more like saying that blacks should not be able to vote today because they could not in Washington's time.

Apart from the ability of slaves to vote, FREE blacks could vote in some states of the United States at the time of the General

lol--- yep, that absolutely proves my point wrong

Logical straw man is still logical straw man. Of couse that isn't an issue because you argue on emotion and not logic. Slaves could not vote and if there were any legal slaves they still would not be able to vote because they were non citizens. This is vastly different from women's sufferage, who were citizens but who were denied the vote. But, then again, they gained the vote by following a procedure of amending the constitution that was created "in Washington's time."

Player, I really appreciate your detailed response. It was very informative.I suppose when I look at the debate about abortions I assume certain things are understood but evidently I am being hasty. I don't consider a miscarriage an abortion since it is a natural occurrence and no outside intervention has occurred. While this may not be technically correct, I think it is the obviously the general consensus. I am, essentially, a naturalist and therefore the aspect of intervening in the progress of the unborn goes pretty strongly against my beliefs. Lets just assume that the fetus is healthy, the mother is healthy and the baby when it is born will have half a chance at a reasonably happy life. These are the abortions that are in question as far as I am concerned. Adoption, as mentioned earlier, would solve any problems regarding underprivileged children. I understand that many women who have abortions intend to ultimately have children but I am going to go back to my example of people I know who have terminated what they decided at the time were unwanted pregnancies. These individuals all have children now and still regret having the abortion. None of these people regret having their existing children.So, to maybe streamline the discussion would it be more beneficial to focus on those abortions that were not due to natural causes? I don't think that anyone in their right mind would object to a fetus being aborted when it will die anyway or is dead already, especially if this means the mother will be harmed by non-action. Any extreme opinions, one way or another, should be taken in light of the fact that they are just that: extreme.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Its really more like saying that blacks should not be able to vote today because they could not in Washington's time.

Apart from the ability of slaves to vote, FREE blacks could vote in some states of the United States at the time of the General

lol--- yep, that absolutely proves my point wrong

Logical straw man is still logical straw man. Of couse that isn't an issue because you argue on emotion and not logic. Slaves could not vote and if there were any legal slaves they still would not be able to vote because they were non citizens. This is vastly different from women's sufferage, who were citizens but who were denied the vote. But, then again, they gained the vote by following a procedure of amending the constitution that was created "in Washington's time."

Not even close. Your claim was just spurious... and thus my statement. It was a response to what you said, directly.

If you wish to look back to George Washington to justify your views on Abortion... and then claim that treatment of blacks then was reasonable, well.....

Funkyterrance wrote:Player, I really appreciate your detailed response. It was very informative.I suppose when I look at the debate about abortions I assume certain things are understood but evidently I am being hasty. I don't consider a miscarriage an abortion since it is a natural occurrence and no outside intervention has occurred. While this may not be technically correct, I think it is the obviously the general consensus.

It is assumed that this is the case. However, as I stated, when you look at the statistics, most people just don't realize that miscarriages ARE included or how many women getting an "abortion" are actually having a miscarriage removed. I know because I went through it. I have given the full and complete details in other threads.

Funkyterrance wrote:I am, essentially, a naturalist and therefore the aspect of intervening in the progress of the unborn goes pretty strongly against my beliefs. Lets just assume that the fetus is healthy, the mother is healthy and the baby when it is born will have half a chance at a reasonably happy life. These are the abortions that are in question as far as I am concerned. Adoption, as mentioned earlier, would solve any problems regarding underprivileged children.

Except, again, those assumptions are just false many times. Also, its not just a matter of "underprivilaged child" -- give a better home = good outcome. When a woman does not want to have a child, she generally does not take as good care of herself as she ought. The child that is born will NOT necessarily be healthy. This, again is not necessarily reflected in abortion statistics, because its just hard to track. Again, the data usually comes from voluntary surveys and how many women really are going to say they are aborting because they want to keep using illegal drugs? (just to point out one issue with the data). Some studies have tried to delve into this type of issue better... and that is part of why you see such a wide variation in numbers.

Funkyterrance wrote: I understand that many women who have abortions intend to ultimately have children but I am going to go back to my example of people I know who have terminated what they decided at the time were unwanted pregnancies. These individuals all have children now and still regret having the abortion. None of these people regret having their existing children.

Then your experience is not that diverse. You have also not visited many courts where child abuse is dealt with, not been to the homes of many seriously disabled children (note.. I am talking a good deal beyond being in a wheelchair, etc). Also, you have to define "regret". In many cases, the regret is that they would not have gotten themselves into that situation, or that they just wish things were different. I have NEVER..and its false to claim that abortion is something easy or that people like, but that is part of the whole point. This is a personnal choice, its not something that an outside entity.. people not even involved have any right to dictate.

Funkyterrance wrote:So, to maybe streamline the discussion would it be more beneficial to focus on those abortions that were not due to natural causes?

Except, that is a distortion. And, who gets to define "natural causes" anyway. IN my case, even when I had a "fully natural" miscarriage (I had several), because my blood is Rh neg, I had to get an injection each time. Each time, the lab techs and nurses would look at the "post partum" bit, not see a baby and literally assume I had an abortion.. and note, I am talking medical professionals, in a hospital. IF THEY misunderstand so heavily, you can imagine how the general population feels.

After that incident, I have had opportunity to talk with a LOT of local women. I was very far from the only one with such an experience. Again, when you realize that anywhere from 30-50% miscarry.

Funkyterrance wrote:I don't think that anyone in their right mind would object to a fetus being aborted when it will die anyway or is dead already, especially if this means the mother will be harmed by non-action. Any extreme opinions, one way or another, should be taken in light of the fact that they are just that: extreme.

Except, you are talking about the Governor of S Dakota, laws passed in Mississippi, etc, etc, etc. elsewhere. So, extreme or not, they are significant numbers in the US.

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you wish to look back to George Washington to justify your views on Abortion... and then claim that treatment of blacks then was reasonable, well.....

First of all, I don't know where this whole "look back to George Washington" to justify anything about Abortion started from. I don't think he ever wrote anything on the subject. But I do strongly object to the progressive claptrap that suggests that somehow "we" are "superior" (and thus progressed) from those ignorant prmitives that lived just a few short centuries before us. In any age people can rise to the greatest heights and sink to the greatest depths and both can actually happen more or less at the same time in various parts around the world.

Nor did I claim that the teatment of (X) was well. There were a lot of groups that weren't treated well back then. There are a lot of groups that aren't treated well today.

But there were people who championed the better treatment of these people back then as they do today ... and in most cases the general public shout them down.

Funkyterrance wrote:Player, I really appreciate your detailed response. It was very informative.I suppose when I look at the debate about abortions I assume certain things are understood but evidently I am being hasty. I don't consider a miscarriage an abortion since it is a natural occurrence and no outside intervention has occurred. While this may not be technically correct, I think it is the obviously the general consensus.

I think you may be missing out on one of the key examples of pro-life rhetoric going wrong. Outside intervention being key. Almost anything can be considered outside intervention- say a pregnant woman having a glass of wine, or a cigarette, engaging in strenuous activity, or any number of possible things that could cause a miscarriage.

The assumption that a fertilised egg is a human essentially makes any potential threat to birth criminal. Player is correct to point out that miscarriage is also abortion. The anti-abortion lobby has been involved recently in policing the pregnancy of women, and indeed criminalising them, for actions that might have caused a miscarriage abortion.

For what it's worth, I do think that it's good that you're seeing that the issue is more complicated than what can easily be put on to a bumper sticker, or made into a political slogan.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein